Monday Bolts – 12.6.10

Anthony Macri of HoopsWorld with some Thunder analysis: “It seems a feature of the young Thunder squad to constantly be on the attack – an attribute that will serve them well as they grow and mature. While it may occasionally get them into trouble against the best defensive teams in the league–forcing drives into strong defensive teams tends to yield bad shots and turnovers–it will serve them well against the rest.”

Amar from SLC Dunk says don’t believe the hype with the Thunder: “You know all about potential, right? The post-RUN TMC Warriors had loads . . . or AI’s Nuggets . . . or the Dubs . . . or Webber’s Kings . . . or like LeBron in Cleveland, and so on. Think upon this before signing your life savings into the ‘savior’ of the NBA Kevin Durant. Remember we used to think that Kobe, LeBron, and Bosh had no faults when they were young too! Hope and optimism elevate the Thunder to adoration they have yet to deserve. In my language, this is hype. What’s that Chuck D?”

Marc Stein from his Weekend Dime: “One scout I trust did voice some concern about Westbrook’s floor game, suggesting that the 22-year-old’s QBing has suffered some because he’s looking so hard for his own shot and getting to the rim. The same scout, though, points out that Westbrook somehow looks even faster than he did before going away with Team USA. The scout said: “He goes from a jog to full speed as fast as anyone. You could be running side by side with Westbrook and then he can be six feet in front of you just like that. His change of speed is just ridiculous.”

For OKC folks out there: Strange to watch this Hornets situation go down with the attendance issue and now the league buying the team. If the Thunder weren’t here, I think we’d be a little bit noisy about the situation, but right now, we’re indifferent. I hope the Hornets go to Seattle though (irony, eh?) but Marc Stein doesn’t see that as likely right now: “1. Seattle still needs new building to get the NBA back. 2. Way premature to start talking destinations for Hornets til we see who buys em.”

Zach Lowe of SI assesses the NBA at the quarter mark: “We knew he was good, but no one expected him to be second in the league in Player Efficiency Rating at the 20-game mark. He has improved his shooting from all over the floor, made more free throws than anyone in the league, played fierce defense and displayed uncommon rebounding. He’s also managed to improve his passing numbers while cutting down on turnovers, and he’s carried Oklahoma City’s offense while Kevin Durant has been out with injuries. What a start. Note: Oklahoma City’s defense allows fewer points with Westbrook on the bench, but that appears to be more of a problem with the starting lineup as a whole than with Westbrook individually.”

Power rankings from NBA.com: “Last season, the Thunder were the most improved defensive team in the league. This season, only one team (Cleveland) has regressed more defensively. Friday’s loss in Toronto, where they allowed the Raptors to shoot 55 percent, was the latest example of their defensive issues.”

Stein’s rankings: “Prof Hollinger sums up what I’ve been trying to say since the season’s first rankings: “Fans and media alike got way ahead of themselves” when the “ages of [OKC’s] top eight players are 21, 21, 22, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27.”

From NewsOK, why Nick Collison is a perfect Thunderman: “He embodies what we’re trying to do,” Presti said of Collison, the 12th player selected in the 2003 draft. “A lot of things we’re always talking about, he’s been that.” That’s why the Thunder gave Collison a three-year extension worth roughly $11 million and chipped in another $6.5 million — all the money the Thunder had remaining under this year’s salary cap — as a signing bonus. It takes someone uniquely ungifted to command that kind of payday at age 30 with career averages of 7.7 points, 6.6 rebounds and 23.7 minutes.”

The wrist injury was the injury he had and what kept him out of his freshman season. This injury had nothing to do with his knees.

His knees were the potential for injury. Oden's knees had been about normal for a guy his size up to that point. At the time of the draft, I (an admitted draft nut) considered Durant to be close to as much of an injury risk as Oden.

The only reason Roy fell to 6 was his knees. Portland lucked into him falling that far in the first place, so they're not snake-bitten from that regard. Also, Portland really lucked into the top spot in the draft. They had only a 5% chance of winning it and won it anyway.

Roy fell because of bad knees but Portland got 4 very good years out of him before that really cost them. Those were the 4 best years anyone got from the 2006 draft class, too. Lots of teams get 4 or 5 really good years from their top 10 pick. Lots more get a lot less than that.

So, they got lucky to get Roy in the first place then they got really lucky to get Oden after that.

Simmons or no Simmons, it's still a pretty good argument. Different length legs, injury history, poor workout, etc.

You'd take a LOT of players over Oden, if you were looking at just red flags. The problem is, the potential that people saw really overshadowed what should have been some pretty significant warning signs.

Like the crazy hot chick that all of your friends warn you about, but there is a faint glimmer of hope that she isn't as crazy as they say, because she hasn't stabbed anyone in at least two months, and she is *really* hot...so you take a chance, and end up in the ER with a knife in your leg after an argument about whole grain vs. standard pasta.

It was a calculated risk, and not everyone would have calculated it the same way. Especially after the poor workout.

Yep. I'm not arguing that Roy wasn't the most talented player in that draft by any means. Maybe it is unfair to call it a 'poor' decision, but its just something Portland has to live with. Like you said, they were probably setting themselves up for injuries, whether by circumstance or by choice. Given that Portland themselves set the stage for where they are right now, I don't really see how we can say its something that they couldn't control.

@LandstanderSimmons has been championing himself having "known" for years. The fact is, he's not a GM, and he has even said himself that he didn't think there was a GM in the league who would have made the decision differently. Oden was the clear cut #1 for GMs, and most everyone reporting at the time agreed on that, even if a few of them had differing opinions. Heck, I was one of those people who thought KD should have gone first. KD is the impetus for my love of the NBA after he was the most impressive college player I had ever seen.

@BenLooking back on the 2006 draft, the only player one might reasonably take over Roy, even if he plays at 80% for the rest of his career, is Rondo. No one was going to take Rondo 6th, or even 7th (Portland's original pick). Portland still made the best choice available for what they had. Maybe they were setting themselves up with injuries, but it's not like they were blowing the picks on completely useless players.

Krstic and Livingston were never meant to be the central core of the team the way Roy and Oden were. Besides, the point still stands. If Krstic started getting injured all the time, it would still be considered a poor decision to take him onto the team.

Certainly, a large majority of people were clamoring for Oden to be #1 pick, but from what we know about Presti so far, he isn't just any other GM. It's impossible to say at this point in time, and being #2 certainly helped to make his decision easy, but we can't say for sure that he would have taken Oden over Durant if he had the #1 pick.

Even Roy had some existing injury concerns coming into the draft. Minor or not, the fact is that Portland selected two players with injury histories to be their core players. Maybe it's unfair, but I don't think we can excuse their decisions in this respect.

Here is a piece from the Book of Basketball (Simmons!) that's posted on ESPN.com right now.

What if Portland had taken Kevin Durant over Greg Oden?

"Here's what we knew about Oden heading into the 2007 Draft: owned Ewing-like potential as a rebounder and shotblocker … struggled with a broken wrist during his freshman year at Ohio State … only played one "Wow!" game (the '07 NCAA Championship: 25 points, 12 rebounds, 4 blocks in defeat against Florida's Joakim Noah and Al Horford) … his right leg was one inch longer than his left leg (a red flag for potential knee/feet/back issues) … openly admitted that he didn't love basketball and once wanted to become a dentist … frightened everyone in Portland with a jittery pre-draft workout … looked and walked like a thirty-six-year-old man.

Meanwhile, Durant lived and breathed basketball, became a national phenomenon during his only Texas season, crushed his Portland workout and had no conceivable offensive ceiling. Throw in Portland's tortured history with fragile centers and, as the years pass, it's becoming harder to fathom that the Blazers willingly decided, "Screw the sure thing, let's take the big guy with uneven legs who played one great college game." But that's what they did. Because we love revising history over time, owner Paul Allen and then-general manager Kevin Pritchard have been protected by the "Come on, anyone would have taken Oden, you always take a franchise center, it's not their fault he keeps getting injured" defense. That presumes Oden was considered a sure thing -- like Kareem, Ewing or Hakeem -- and ignores those six months everyone spent wondering about him before the 2007 Draft"

So...that kind of kills the argument that Oden was the clear cut #1, in my opinion.

@BenOden was the slam dunk number one pick. Yes, there were some injury concerns, and yes, there were a few (much fewer than you would guess with all these experts using hindsight) people saying to take Durant, but Oden would have been Presti's pick too. Roy had his own concerns, but his first three years didn't exactly scream, "Knees about to explode."

I wasn't implying that Portland is simply unlucky, just as I'm not implying that OKC is simply lucky. But luck plays a factor. Whatever luck Portland lacked, we seem to have gained. We may have made better decisions, though I would say the signings/draft picks outside Roy/Oden/Durant/Westbrook have been pretty even. Batum/Aldridge are as good as Ibaka/Green. Signing Camby has had a larger positive impact than anyone else the Thunder have yet picked up. I think they are the best comparison because Portland wasn't unduly hyped. Portland was, is a good team. They ran into something that is tearing them down, but it's not something they could control.

I don't know if we can simply chalk up Portland's injury problems to bad luck. If there's one thing that Presti seems to focus on, or rather steer away from, it's players with injury pasts. Portland didn't have that focus as much, so the construction of their team is actually different from the Thunder in that respect. Seems like if you draft injury-prone players or players with serious histories, you can't complain when they actually do get injured.

Okay, maybe Hollinger's rankings make sense after 41 or, perhaps, 82 games. But they're crap for time being. If I'm Hollinger, I withhold them until later like the BCS rankings. (Not that the BCS is the model ranking system!)

@AnonymousNo, I don't think Brooks deserved the award. Do I think he had a part in our wins last year? Definitely. I think he does connect with our guys in a way that many others would not have. But to call him the best coach of last year (which is what the award is supposed to mean) is silly. I can't support COY being valid for a guy who consistently didn't know how to use his timeouts, substitute in the flow of the game, nor allocate minutes properly.

Luck IS an issue, even if it might be overstated. But let's be honest, the Sonics had neither the first nor second worst record when KD (a franchise changing talent) fell in their laps. Last year we had a historically healthy team (this year already should show that was in fact lucky). I'm not saying luck is the only reason we were good, but most teams (specifically excluding the Clippers) could have done pretty well with 4 top 5 picks in the last 3 drafts.

yeah I expected us to make the Conference Finals at absolute best, and that was with favorable matchups. Looking at the strength of the west and what we are doing so far, I think that would be a incredible season. 2nd round would be a good season as well. The only disappointment would be losing in the 1st round unless we play the Lakers again.

so..if (big if) the Hornets do move back to seattle, will Simmons start calling us the thunder? Would he start calling the sonics, 'zombie hornets?' Would Sonic then purchase the naming rights to the Ford Center? Would tree and leaf give me a refund for my zombie sonics shirt? I need answers!!

@andrewA lot of people had us as a lock for the conference finals. Certainly that is a possibility, but we are not playing anywhere near that well right now. I'm looking for a rebound defensively as the year goes on, but I'm scared of being another first round out (no matter the seed) with the defense we currently employ.

We are 14-7 and will win 50 games as long as neither Russ or KD miss an extended period. I like us to finish around 55 wins, which won't be a disappointment imo. There was only a few media types hyping us excessively (Simmons for one) and I still like our chances to make 2nd round and possibly conference finals. I don't think much of the media had us doing any more than that....

On a side note, I don't think it can really be argued that we were terribly overhyped this summer. Now, that's not to say we are doomed to failure, but we certainly aren't as good as the media would have everyone believe. Our COY really didn't deserve the award. Even fans here said as much, noting the award was given out for "most surprising team" rather than actual best coach. Certainly our GM has made solid decisions, but outside of the luck of 4 top 5 picks in 3 drafts, we've yet to see any real blockbuster moves that definitely panned out.

I think the best comparison for this team was Portland. Of course, looking at Portland, it was not poor decision making or an ultimately flawed team that did them it; it was injuries. If Oden isn't made of glass, they could conceivably have already won a championship. If Roy's knees weren't made from Jell-O, they probably continue winning 50 wins long term.

@DizzyDaiI wish coaches were treated the same as players. Got a high end coach accustomed to playing for championships, but a rebuilding roster filled with nearly teenagers? Trade him to a formerly rebuilding team looking to make the next step, but who only has a "great teacher" coach. Both sides win, eh?

@DXLI mean, I think we can understand their frustration. They're a team that has been really good for a long time and hasn't ever really gotten the recognition it deserves (Sloan for COTY, for example). But, you'd think that a team like OKC, in a market comparable to SLC, would be encouraging to them.

Also, yeah, the comparisons they make are weird. Try San Antonio, considering Presti has said over and over that is who he is emulating in his building methods.

Sorry, SLC Dunk, unfortunately Utah is the team without a long-term growth plan. Utah has a cheap ownership who doesn't value young players (trading Maynor to us to avoid the luxury tax is NOT a championship move), and is basically maxed-out talent-wise.

How is OKC's situation in any way similar to Denver or Cleveland? Melo and Lebron wouldn't commit to the teams that draft them, Durant has, and for many years. OKC is already a player in the West and if any of its young prospects pan out (if Harden, Serge or Aldrich get better), will contend for championships. Who's going to get better on Utah? Gordon Hayward is their only really young player.